Why Do Pragmatic Solutions Not Answer the Ideals?

Pragmatism is living in the real world. It application of knowledge, as in technology. It is life experience, which is activism, and service oriented jobs. So, why does pragmatism leave some humans "cold"? Why are "ideals" so important to move "the human", whether ideals are used by the poltician to gain the vote, or the marketer to gain the sale. Humans respond to ideals.

Those with artistic bents, are not prone to be moved by the statistics and analysis or the facts of "science". Art, though, is the expression of "the human". It is connection to human feelings, thoughts and experiences that brings more to life than monotonous existence. Art is beauty. Art is creativity. Art is self expression. Art is philosophy. And art can't be appreciated if there is no liberty for expression. Expression is art!

The question of the value of art in today's technologically oriented society makes for questions about the "humanizing forces" of art.

Our brains, bodies and very being are affected by our senses. The senses are engaged in art and have an impact on emotion, or the sentinent portion of "the human". Art can help relieve stress, or process grief. Art is therapeutic for "Man".

Art is imagery in poetry, as in painting. Art is fashion and interior design. Art is drama and dance. Art is about color.

Art has not always been appreciated, as art is representative of something that humans can all understand and this is what has made art "idolatrous" to religious ideals. Relgious ideals either translate "God" into the practical, which is religion, or the mystical, which is the spiritual. Because "God" isn't understood as a metaphor of human expression, but as a real and active being, "the human" has been crushed under the "foot of God". This is why I much prefer being atheistic in understanding of "art", as even art must be interpreted. And art's expression and interpreted meaning is about personal realities. What was the artist thinking or meaning by a particular painting, essay or drama? "God" is really about human expression. And human expression must have liberty for "the human" to fulfill potential. "God" interferes with "life", because of some projected and protected meaning about/to/for life.

Our Founders understood the value of protecting liberty for conscience's sake. And conscience is about "art"!

A Note for Humanism and It's Ideals

I have been reading and reading and it seems to me that today's thrust for religion is humanistis, rather than Theistic. But, what are the problems of humanism, as an ideal? Humanism can't be held as individuals in their OWN right are the only end, not some cultural "ideal"! Otherwise, individuals are not values, only the "ideal", which is unattainable in this world.

All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?

Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.

The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?

It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!

Pragmatic Solutions Don't Answer the Ideals

On another blog site, Experimental Theology, it was suggested that boundaries are a problem. I imagine that this is the way people are trying to "connect" across cultural, and racial boundaries. It is the "usefulness" of the Church's message of "Christ". (A rose by any other name is just as sweet!). And such image/myth making is how our Founders understood and formed our government.

The question of whether one internalizes their culture in such a way that one's very identity is compromised and whether one's "self" is rooted in such a way that universalizes such myths, and destroy or damage "self". Can one who has gone beyond a "group identity" give up their "self"? This is the question of alturism. It obviously has been done, but is everyone predisposed to alturistic "service"? Is it an innate nature that needs challenge to become "alturistic", or is such a challenge futile because one's tendency is genetically determined? These are questions that will transform our understanding of psychotherapy itself.

I tend to think that one's racial and cultural background is internalized to such an extent that without being exposed to a "wider world", there is no hope for any change. And I also think that it is really myth that holds the "universalization" that is necessary for "alturistic concerns". But, I also believe that there is a tension between one's genetic nature and one's cultural examples. Some might not identity with others, but be independent in their thinking and being in the world.

Mystics aren't logical in their thinking, but romantic/transcendental. "Images" make for meaning in such minds/brains. Such thinking can be useful to "sell goods" such as marketers do, but is not the way to govern. Governance needs "real life" solutions to "real life" problems, not image making images that give some ungrounded hope about tomorrow. Politicians use such salesmanship to get elected, but how many prove themselves to really be true to their compaign promises. Such is the reality of the "real world". The real world is not based on "ideal solutions" but pragmatic ones.

Our Founders recognized that man was made for "ideals" to hope and dream. This was their "promise in their creation of our government" where all men are created equal. But practically speaking, when one has a job in the real world, all are not equal in position, nor in abilities. Therefore, "equal" has a limited application.

Internationalists would like to see our nation-state export such democratic ideals. But, the reality is that we have needs at home right now, that make it pragmatically improbable if not impossibe to meets "everyone's need" for democracy or humanitarian aid...There are just too many problems for one nation (or the West) to address! Politicians are trying to come to solutions that will pacify the Internationalist and the Localist, the essentialists and the non-essentialist. And scientists are wondering if "myth" might be a pragmatic solution to "real world" problems. Others think that the problem is religion itself, that uses myth to promote such "self-annilhilation" or "alturistic concern".

The Other Side to the Military Draft

The age old question about whether the individual or society has the 'upper hand" has been a question that has always been of interests to sociologists and pscyologists as well as many others. It is not resolved because the tension between individual liberty and social conformity will always remain in tension in a free society. With that in mind, how does one view the "Military Draft"?

The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?

In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.

Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy,  etc.

I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.

Moral Realism and Language Games

Moral realism is grounded in the real world of "the political". What is claimed to be "moral" cannot be grasped without language. And language becomes the problem of diversity. Diversity of interests make for our public climate of "debate" about what "should" claim universal right to make the "goals" for societal benefit. So, what can be "the moral", if there are diverse ways of expressing the "moral"? The academic disciplines seek to claim the "moral" for their own purposes. But, all of these claims should be limited by our Constitutional government! We cannot allow the "universal" to undermine the personal, nor our nation-state.

Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!

Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.

Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must  be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.

Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state?  Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.

Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.

As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.

Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.

Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.

While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.

I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!

An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias

Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?

Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.

Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.

Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.

Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.

Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.

In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.

Why Would Anyone Be Interested in Ends?

In the last post, I asserted that the progressive is interested in "ends" or "outcomes". Why would this be important? I can think of two reasons.

The first reason is if the progressive can control the information or how the information is given (what frame of reference, and what "concern" should the particular individual have), then, the individual will not be educated, but propagandized, indoctrinated, etc. For critical thinking to occur, then there has to be freedom of information. There should never be limited information or unhindered bias. Journalists know that this is always hard, as the journalists themself is biased or "invested" in the political realm. And unbiased reporting is rare and exceptional.

In education, if bias is not acknowledged or there is forthright propaganda, then humans can be controlled, and this is useful for those who might want that control for "other ends", which brings me to my second point.

The second reason the progressive might want to manipulate the populace, is for control of resources. If one can gain power over humans by false information, or skewed, biased reporting, then one can appeal to pride, power or position to "control" others. In the mean-time, the progressive will use this control to manipulate the whole system in his "favor" and those he "owes" . The "end justifies the means", because the progressive values control, which ends up giving him the advantage of opportunity, if not down-right control of resources at his disposal. This way the government can be useful for "other means", while promising "better days" ahead.

Everyone knows how easy it can be to "use" government resources that are readily available, and when government can manipulate the markets through owning the "store", then the outcome is confiscation of other's resources (the tax-payer pays).
E
For instance, it was reported that the government would grant scholarships, ( this sounds like benvolence), but these scholarships will indebt the student to the government, which will require payment through "public service", just as the military does today with those who "sign on the dotted line". This way, the government "owns" you, so to speak, whenever you want to better yourself, you will be required to give back to society, not voluntarily, but co-ercively....because there will be no other choices, if one wants to go to school.

Doesn't this sound like a miltary STATE and not a liberal democracy? Ends, for the greedy, which means power and money, is a necessary part of the whole "determined plan".

Amusement About Augustine...

Today I remembered a blog I read yesterday and couldn't help but think that it was amusing. The blogger said that Augustine had suggested that God's reason for creating man's nipples was for aesthetic reasons. Isn't that funny?

On the other hand, or seriously, Augustine must have felt he needed to defend everything and somehow give God the credit for its reason for being. Men's nipples? No real purpose, other than they "look good"? But, that is okay. The world is as beautiful, as it is baffling,

That is really " good news" if you find that "art", music, beauty, and other "useless" creations are really important as pointers to and of beauty. Beauty resonates in the heart of man, as something that is from "another" category, than useful. And that category has a lot to do with what is NOT, but what humans "know" by nature. What is the meaning of beauty?

Science and Theology and the Human

Some have said that science and theology are separate entities that have different tasks and should not seek to be intergrated. I would disagree.

Although both science and theology have value to man's existence, one is useful for pragmatic reasons, while the other is not, necessarily.

Science is investigative, and is based on "real world" understandings of life, while theology is no less investigative, but is not usually based on the 'real world" but the transcendental world. There is no proof of God, as in his transcendetal existence cannot be observed or evaluated. All we can observe is the world of experience in the physical realm, which is about man and his environment.

Some would understand this endeavor as an important undertaking, as it connects the transcendental to the real, which would bring about a reasoned faith. Gnosticism has bee the bane of culture, as it disconnects faith from reason altogether. Faith alone distorts purpose, and hinders human flourishing, because it separates reality from faith. These faith understandings are not believable by those who value science and the "real world". How can the interface of science and theology "work" to bring about a 'better world"?

Man and his environment intersects many disciplines in psychology and sociology and anthropology and political theory. These are integrations of "sides" of the Quadralateral.

Culture contains the religion, traditions and political realms of understanding a man in his experience/environment. How does one understand all men (universal) within their context (particularity)? All men have reason, but not all men have the same experience(s) even within the same culture. The complexity of understanding man in "God's image" is a huge undertaking. And I'm not sure that man can never be understood completely, in universal terms, as there will always be the particularity of the individual and so many factors go into that mix that it is improbale that there will ever be consensus. But, then, this is what research is about, isn't it?

Therefore, science is mandantory in theological endeavor, as theology is about man, as much as it is about God. There is no absolute universal because each man as an individual cannot be understood from afar.

Is Behavior Based on Reason, or Tradition? And Is Belief Based on Reason or Tradition?

I wrote a post a few days ago about belonging was the ideal for faith, as it affirm all people as made in God's image and affims a humanitarian view of religion. But, as my thinking has "matured" these past few days, I understand they way I categorized belief and behavior as only one way of understanding; where belief was based on tradition and behavior was based on reason.

This is true if one wants to believe that all belief systems are limited ways to understand "god" and therefore, all relgions are man's attempt to interpret "god". The history of traditions area would affirm this way of thinking.

But, can't belief also be based on reason? Reason is useful in any attempt within a particular tradition to understand "faith". This way of thinking would be affirmed by the philosophy of traditions approach.

Behavior can be viewed as cultural (tradition) or theological (reason). If one undestands the culture's tradition and the way that culture defines worship, then behavior reinforces the tradition's understanding of "truth". This way of thinking is understood by the psychology of religion approach...

So, whether one understands behavior or belief in a cultural or reasoned way, both are "ways of life", a "way of understanding" and a "cultural framework".

Views of Truth

There are three ways of understanding "truth" or reality; correspondence, coherent and pragmatic. These understanding relate to the Quadralateral in different ways.'

Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.

Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.

The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.

Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?